Stevens v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Stevens

270 A.D.2d 248, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2475

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 248 (Stevens v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevens v. Stevens, 270 A.D.2d 248, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement in a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint seeking to set aside the stipulation of settlement in the matrimonial action. There was no evidence that the stipulation was the result of overreaching, fraud, collusion, or mistake, or that its terms were unconscionable (see, Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 257 AD2d 621; Roth v Evangelista, 248 AD2d 369; Harragan v Harragan, 204 AD2d 686). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff assented to the terms of the stipulation (cf., Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231; 1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747).

[249]*249The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Joy, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement in a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint seeking to set aside the stipulation of settlement in the matrimonial action. There was no evidence that the stipulation was the result of overreaching, fraud, collusion, or mistake, or that its terms were unconscionable (see, Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 257 AD2d 621; Roth v Evangelista, 248 AD2d 369; Harragan v Harragan, 204 AD2d 686). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff assented to the terms of the stipulation (cf., Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231; 1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747).

[249]*249The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Joy, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 248, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-stevens-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack